2017: The Year in Film "Alien: Covenant" Review

The Alien franchise is, at this point, nearly as inexplicable in its survival as the Fast and Furious franchise. After 4 individual Alien films (only 2 of which are evem good - although those 2 are obviously great), 2 awful Alien v. Predator films and innumerable aborted starts, stops and would-be reboots, cinema master and director of the original Alien, Ridley Scott returned with an ambitious vision of the world that's home to the franchise with 2012's Prometheus.  While Prometheus is by no means a perfect film, it is incredibly ambitious, gorgeous, incredibly well-made, and gorgeous to look at. Michael Fassbender's performance alone is worth the cost of admission. Personally, I'm a fan of Prometheus, and even though several of the characters are inexplicably idiots, the film simply has a vision and an ambition that is sadly empty from most major studio releases, and especially sci fi.

Alien: Covenant is a direct sequel to Prometheus, and thus a prequel to the 1979 original. As Prometheus ended without revealing the classic xenomorph monster, Alien: Covenant has work to do.

It's 10 years after the exploration vessel Prometheus was lost, and humanity's first large-scale colonization mission to the stars has been undertaken to a distant world. After a fluke occurrence leads to the discovery of a mysterious distress beacon, the crew decides to investigate a seemingly hospitable world, with predictably dire consequences.

The Good: This film manages to ground the speculative ambition of Prometheus more firmly within the world of the first film, successfully bringing the story to a place where the origins of what will come to pass in the original films actually make sense within Scott's framework. Like every Ridley Scott film ever, this one is absolutely gorgeous, with top notch effects, cinematography, world-building and filmmaking across the board. Michael Fassbender is, as he was in Prometheus, far and away the best part of this film, this time playing two separate "brother" androids who drive much of the plot. English actress Katherine Waterston (I recognize her from Inherent Vice) channels her inner Ellen Ripley and Danny "Kenny Powers" McBride transitions to a serious role rather seamlessly. The plot is smarter and more sensible (if less ambitious..) than Prometheus' was, even if some of the characters yet again make inexplicable decisions. It IS a horror movie, after all.



The Bad: Billy Crudup's character (the acting captain) is a straight-up idiot. It's not even Crudup's fault, although his performance isn't going to win him any forgiveness here, as it's fine but not great, but the decisions of his character are throughout stupid at best. The film is occasionally clumsy and obtuse in its efforts to link it with the original film, with many, many explicit homages throughout. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but I think the film could have been more subtle about it, as "Alien" IS right there in the title after all. I think, even though it's absolutely a good thing that the series has become more grounded in the world of the original film, that abandoning a good chunk of Prometheus' ambition and speculative vision are a mistake, even if this film is ultimately satisfying, I think it could have potentially said even more than it ultimately did.

In all, if you're a fan of Alien, Aliens, Prometheus, or the franchise as a whole, you won't want to miss this one. A talented cast, gorgeous filmmaking, fun world-building and creepy space horror all combine to make a successful film that stands among the best sci fi films of recent years. I'm a little disappointed that it didn't build more on what Prometheus had suggested, albeit in a more sensible way, but ultimately Michael Fassbender and Ridley Scott make a pair that fans of the genre won't want to miss.

8/10.

2014: The Year in Film: "X-Men: Days of Future Past" Review

Am I actually ahead of DVD releases yet?? I think I am...

Kind of odd that three consecutive movie reviews here at HOB have featured three separate parts of the Marvel Comic Universe brought to film by three separate studios, but that's just the way that my movie going calendar played out in April and May of this year. It's worth noting that the X-Men are among the most popular comic book franchises on the planet, rivaled only by Batman, and that they feature a rich cast of characters that should be pretty easily brought over to film. Fox's X-Men films have been an interesting ride. First, Bryan Singer's original film X-Men, released in 2000 (!!) kind of kick-started this whole comic book film era that we're still in the midst of. Without the relative quality (it hasn't held up great, but considering that the film was released only a few short years after the horror that was Batman and Robin, its success was a necessity if major studios were going to take chances on big-budget comic book fare again. The sequel, X2, released in 2003, still holds up as one of the better comic book films that we've had. Then Bryan Singer left to go make the snoozefest that was Superman Returns, and professional hatchet man Brett "Rush Hour" Ratner was Sony's choice to direct the horrid and continuity crushing X-Men: The Last Stand, which was nearly the death of the X-Men on film until 2011's surprise X-Men: First Class, which took advantage of a stellar cast (Jennifer Lawrence! Michael Fassbender!) to resurrect the X-Men on film. When watching First Class, if you would have assumed that you were watching a total reboot... no one would have blamed you, as that was obviously the intention at the time. However, Bryan Singer returned to the X-Men franchise.. and the studio made the baffling decision to treat all of the X-Men films as one continuity. No, that doesn't seem possible.

Enter, X-Men: Days of Future Past, inspired by one of the legendary X-Men stories in the comics, where a dystopian future where the world has been decimated by mutant-hunting robots can only be prevented by traveling to the past. The film opens with a glimpse at that future, where the remnants of the X-Men struggle to survive, and desperate plan emerges, to send Wolverine's consciousness back in time. to stop the event that precipitated the creation of the Sentinels, robots that hunt and destroy mutants. Wolverine is sent back to the 1970's, to meet up with the First Class cast, and recruit them into saving the future.

The Good: First Class might have gotten more lucky with its cast than any film I can recall. It successfully signed Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence to co-starring/supporting roles immediately before they both blew up into huge stars. As a result, Days of Future Past gets Fassbender at the height of his powers as a young Magneto and Katniss Everdeen herself as villain/antihero Mystique. James McAvoy as a young Professor Xavier was perfect casting as well. Hugh Jackman does a pretty great Wolverine, and here he serves as the bridge between the two timelines. The cast, especially Fassbender, elevates the film beyond the simple sum of its parts, adding real heft and gravitas to the 70's timeline. Story-wise, this film is about 10,000X better than it has any right to be. As anyone who has seen all of the X-Men films can attest, unifying the timelines and treating it as a cohesive whole should be practically impossible, and while this film doesn't pull it off perfectly, it comes PRETTY damn close, which in and of itself is an impressive feat. Despite a runtime of over two hours, the film feels tight and tense throughout, with events in one timeline influencing the other in a palpable way. Despite some big, impressive action scenes, this film winds up focused on character in a very subtle and welcome deviation from what has become the superhero movie norm (namely: HUGE action sequence to close everything).  The film looks great, and really pulls off the differing timelines visually.



The Bad: While it overall works pretty damn well, the film's premise (reconciling two seemingly irreconcilable narratives) kind of falls apart the more that you think about it. This is probably more of a problem for me, the nerd, than it would be for a more casual viewer, but some of the events of the last X-Men franchise don't make sense in light of some of the revelations from this one. And that's fine, it shouldn't have worked AT ALL, so the fact that it does mostly work is impressive.  Additionally, the film's "big bad", Bolivar Trask (Peter Dinklage), feels underserved in comparison to the in-fighting among our mutants from varying timelines. The future timeline suffers at the expense of the 1970's one, and feels underserviced in comparison to all of the 70's action.

In all, this is a fine flick and a smart, thoughtful, surprisingly effective entrant to the comic book film collection that's somehow still not played out. Welcome back, Bryan Singer, and holy hell is Fassbender good. The main draw is the past/future versions of Professor X and Magneto - with some serious acting chops on display, and they do not disappoint.

8.5/10. If you like the X-Men at all, this just might be the best X-movie yet.

2013: The Year in Film: "12 Years A Slave" Review

Sometimes the old idiom "truth is stranger than fiction" is absolutely, 100% true. The tale of Solomon Northrop, a free man and talented musician who was tricked, kidnapped, and sold into slavery, is by all accounts true, and offers a disturbing window into our nation's dark past. First a historical backdrop: after society became entrenched and indelibly 'American' on this side of the Atlantic, slavery took on an expressly racial form. Following the ban of the international slave trade passed by the U.S. and Britain in 1808, the only source of slaves for domestic slavers was the internal slave trade, which led to the development of huge markets throughout the south. This also led to a rise in price, which incentivized the kidnapping and selling into slavery of free black Americans. This practice was shockingly common, but given the legal structures in the antebellum south that were designed to preserve the individual property of slave owners against the rights of the slaves themselves, it could be incredibly difficult for a captured free person to prove their free status.  While Solomon Northrup managed to return to his family and freedom in the north, the fact that a relatively prominent man of means could be yanked from his life as an ordinary citizen underlies all that you need to know about the status of African Americans in the pre-Civil War U.S.

It speaks volumes on the still raw wound of slavery that what may be the most honest and definitive look at slavery on film should be directed by and starring men from England. Rising star Steve McQueen (Shame, Hunger) directs Chiwetel Ejiofor (still not sure how to pronounce his name, you guys) in a film that is simultaneously beautiful, disturbing, inspirational and haunting. Solomon Northrop was a musician, a husband, and a father in Saratoga, New York. He had been born free and lived his entire life as a free man. A chance meeting led to him traveling to Washington D.C. to perform, where he was kidnapped and sold into slavery in the slave markets of New Orleans. The title explains the rest. Along the way, we are shown an intimate and complex glimpse into the realities of life for millions of Americans and that most evil of institutions.

The Good: the cinematography is tremendous and this film is simply gorgeous. Contrasting the natural beauty of the American south with the unnatural viciousness of the institution of slavery was, in a word, brilliant. Ejiofor (who I've always been a fan of) is a revelation as Northrop, who becomes known simply as "Platt", bringing a resonant humanity to the role, and a confident grace and dignity to the character. The absolutely stacked supporting cast is all very strong as well, with Benedict Cumberbatch (as the benign slaveowner Ford) and Michael Fassbender (as the vicious and unhinged slaveowner Epps) standing out, along with newcomer Lupita Nyong'o, who is simply spectacular as Epps' prized slave and rape victim Patsey. Fassbender is brilliant in his disturbing and tortured performance, and his Epps is a complex and layered picture of a brutal slaveowner. I don't think we've seen anything quite like it. This film really pulls no punches with its depictions of the innate inhumanity of slavery and the brutality that so often went along with owning human beings, while never feeling gratuitous. Northrop struggles to maintain his humanity, and his role as a relative outsider and newcomer allows us to learn the ins and outs of a slave's day to day existence without ever feeling like a simple exposition dump. Quite simply, the film is at once incredibly brutal and undeniably beautiful. Northrop's struggle to retain his humanity despite seemingly impossible odds is a powerful and inspiring one, and the depictions of the lives of the other slaves, especially Patsey, is simply heartbreaking.



The Bad: I really have one major complaint, and that's simply: Brad Pitt's character. I recognize that this is based on a book and a true story, and that the character that Brad Pitt played did help Solomon regain his freedom, but he simply isn't believable in the setting, mid-1850's Louisiana. He openly pontificates on the evils of slavery while on a plantation and engages in debates with a slaveowner about the inherent wrongness of the institution. Now, I don't know this for certain, but given that the south was willing to wage the most devastating war in US history over the continued survival of slavery, I'd wager that such a man wasn't likely to last long in the antebellum south. He seems like a total anachronism, embodying 21st century ideals in a 19th century setting, and it's really jarring.

Other than Brad Pitt playing a 2013 UN delegate who emerged from a time machine in 1853, this is, plain and simply, the best movie of the last year. It's undeniably powerful, emotionally jarring, incredibly brutal, and unapologetically honest in its depiction. It pulls no punches, and for that it is a crucial film. This film effectively combines art house visuals and sensibilities with the sentimentality of a Spielberg and world class acting. Solomon Northrop is a man worth remembering, and the honest truth of slavery and its indelible mark on American history should be out in the open. More than just a history lesson, though, this is a powerful, emotionally resonant film and should be required viewing for high school students everywhere. Bravo.

9.5/10.

2013: The Year in Film: "The Counselor" Review

Cormac McCarthy is easily one of the greatest living American novelists. The Road, Blood Meridian, and No Country for Old Men top the list of his works. So getting him to write an original screenplay should be a good thing, right? Ridley Scott is undoubtedly one of the greatest living directors. 'Alien', 'Gladiator', 'Black Hawk Down' and 'Blade Runner' top the list of his best films. So getting him to direct a film written by Cormac McCarthy should be an amazing thing, right? When you throw in a cast led by Michael Fassbender, Benicio Del Toro, Brad Pitt, Penelope Cruz and Cameron Diaz, and a big budget, all of the ingredients are here to have a film that at the very least is quite good, right? So what makes a good movie? If you can't just throw together a great writer, a great director and a great cast and mix it up at random, does that mean there's a certain alchemy to the whole process? YES!!! OF COURSE THERE IS. Someone needs to tell 20th Century Fox this. You'll see what I mean in a bit.

So if you've ever read Cormac McCarthy, you'd understand why his writing style is potentially problematic if applied directly to screen, and why the film adaptations of his work are often pretty heavily modified. His writing is sparse and muscular, preferring to show rather than explain, and while that's something that can be extremely effective in film, in my experience film characters often need more fleshing out than their book counterparts. A character in a book can be sufficiently fleshed out by just living inside of their head, but the same technique when applied to film can make the whole enterprise feel empty. Hollow, even. So how does this translate to screen?

In "The Counselor", Michael Fassbender plays the titular character, a high-priced lawyer of some sort who finds himself mixed up with the wrong crowd. Various other "wrong crowd" characters abound. Consequences ensue.

The Good: there are some solid and tense scenes, and the film looks beautiful. Additionally, it doesn't shirk from the brutal violence that defines the drug trade, especially for the Mexican cartels. Beautiful people wearing beautiful things in beautiful places is always pretty to look at, at least. To a certain extent, I appreciate not having my hand held through the plot. It doesn't necessarily bother me that the details are sparse - the details are sparse in, say, Pulp Fiction, right? Fassbender, at least, does what he can with the material, and maybe I just have a soft spot for him, but in a world so lacking in details and exposition, all he can do is react to things that we aren't really in the loop on.



The Bad: the rest of the accomplished and surely expensive cast isn't given much to do but lounge around on couches in expensive clothes and lecture our erstwhile protagonist (who assumes that role just by virtue of his existing) with 200-level philosophy meanderings on the nature of fate, good and evil, snuff films, etc. Great actors like Javier Bardem and Brad Pitt are paraded around like clowns in preposterous outfits and give one long soliloquy after another to a guy who I'm not sure we're particularly supposed to like or care about. It's like McCarthy got REALLY pissed at how everyone praised Tarantino and decided he'd do one better. However, where Tarantino's films carry themselves with exuberant panache, McCarthy's first attempt feels at once bloated and empty, both stale and needlessly nihilistic.Neither his attempts to humor or disturb land with the effectiveness of literally dozens of cheaper and less star-studded films that I've seen. Ultimately, the plot doesn't feel sparse for narrative reasons, it feels sparse out of laziness. For every legitimately "cool" scene there are three that are boring at best, and fail at portentous with a particularly vile brand of postmodern pretension more often than not.  This is a film that references far better media and geopolitical occurrences out of hand, choosing instead to focus on college stoner-level diatribes on topics from the profane to the "profound".

So if you've been wondering if combining a great writer with a great director and a better cast = great film... your question has been answered, and that answer is an enthusiastic "NO". There are elements of a strong film here, but ultimately it feels cheap, whitewashed, needlessly flashy, and far inferior to other modern noir flicks. The unique combination of feeling simultaneously hollow and ridiculously bloated is something that's generally reserved for huge action flicks, but Scott and McCarthy seem to have brought that "After Earth" feeling to a whole new genre. So check it out if you feel like seeing some cool deaths and have already watched every single kind of good movie that you can get your hands on. Otherwise, I think you can skip this one.

4/10.

2012: The Year in Film: "Prometheus" Review.

Ugh, let me apologize again for taking forever with this review.. I wasn't quite sure how to treat it. Spoiler fest or straight review? I elected to go with the straight review b/c the number of people likely interested in a spoiler-heavy discussion of a nerdtastic work of fiction was likely to be lower than the number who read the regular-old reviews. Let me make a confession here... I sort of love "Alien" and "Aliens", and I think the xenomorph is one of the most badass movie/sci fi monsters of all time. Alien3 and Alien Resurrection? Not so much, and I won't even talk about the crossovers with the "Predator" franchise, they don't deserve mention.. but there are two legitimately great entrants to this franchise, which is more than just about every movie franchise can say. Maybe someday I'll rank movie franchises, but for now it suffices to say that "Alien" and "Aliens" are both classics. Not just sci fi classics, but classics. Straight up. "Prometheus" has been burning up the interwebs for months. As another fun aside, while driving to Northwest Ohio the week that Prometheus opened I heard a DJ on a Dayton radio station do his little movie review bit.. he thought Prometheus was "horrible" and "didn't understand it", while he thought the new "Madagascar" movie was "great" and "perfect for adults and kids". So for what it's worth, if you're a mouth breathing Dayton resident who plays soul-sucking music for $22 grand a year, you won't like Prometheus. 

Is "Prometheus" a prequel to "Alien", or isn't it? What we do know is that it's Ridley Scott, one of the top 3 or 4 directors working today, returning to sci fi, where's he's responsible for little flicks called "Alien" and "Blade Runner". The legend is that Scott was upset that he was never given a chance to continue the Alien franchise and has been working on ideas in the same universe for the last 30 years or so.. so the long-gestating "Prometheus" is his vision of what the "Alien" universe has to offer.

This is not an "Alien" prequel in the direct sense of the word. It informs Alien without being directly related by anything other than occurring in the same universe. So don't come in expecting eggs, facehuggers, chestbursters, impaling tails and all the rest and you won't be disappointed by expecting a straight prequel. The year is 2089 and a discovery in a cave in Scotland leads to an expedition to a mysterious, far-off star system that seems to be described in ancient ruins across the planet. Funded by the Weyland Corporation, the group of scientists, soldiers, technicians, corporate stooges and one android sets off to the mysterious, earth-like moon to see who, or what, may be out there. The expedition is seeking answers, or at least riches, and of course encounters much more than they could have possibly anticipated. The mission quickly degenerates from mission of discovery, research and exploration into one of danger, death and destruction, as it becomes clear that the forces on this mysterious moon are not benign.
The cast is top notch. Noomi Rapace (most recognizable as Lisbeth Salander in the Swedish versions of the "Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" series) and Logan Marshall-Green play the scientists responsible for discovering the cosmic link to earth, Idris "Stringer Bell/Luther" Elba is Prometheus' captain, Charlize Theron is the ship's corporate liason/boss and Michael Fassbender plays the mysterious android, David. Fassbender especially, shines. There is an extended period where he alone roams the corridors of the empty ship that is as compelling as any other in the film.

This is a Ridley Scott flick, so you know it's going to look incredible. I do not exaggerate when I say that it may be one of the 2 or 3 most visually stunning and occasionally beautiful films that I've ever seen. The landscapes, ship, and alien structure combine into a lovely and unsettling techno-gothic and tomb-like organic motif that serve to escalate the impending sense of dread. The story is strong if far from perfect, as it ponders and examines some serious questions while also systematically killing off the bulk of its cast. Written by Damon Lindelof, the story has its LOST-esque flaws, but is by and large quite effective and pretty damn audacious in its own right.

First, the film's strengths. Fassbender, Rapace and Elba in particular are great. They are fleshed-out characters who bring the requisite gravitas to what could easily be a silly endeavor.  It's no mistake that the best scenes in the film (excepting the opening... which you'll see when you watch it) feature those three heavily.  Visually, this film knocks it out of the park.  You will not see a better looking film this year, and there are few available.  The entire thing looks like a work of art.  The sets, shots and overall direction are an absolute strength.  The ambition of the film is absolutely a strength.  It would have been extremely easy for everyone involved to rest of their laurels, do a straight action-sci/fi origin story, make a crap load of money and call it a summer, but the attempt to create something lasting and truly great is alone worth recognition.

Now for the weaknesses.  I'm not as down on the film as some, having seen it twice, I feel that most of the alleged plot holes can be reasoned out and aren't plot holes so much as choices not to hold your hand and spell out every single detail in minutia.  With that being said, there are some moments that don't make much sense.  Some characters appear to be incomplete and the film suffers as a result.  I'm interested to see the director's cut (which allegedly has another 30 minutes of footage) to see how much of those are due to pre-release editing and how many are truly due to plotting choices.  The somewhat inexplicable scenes are what separate this film from true greatness.  It looks great, it feels great, but it just falls short.  There are too many questions.  Too many characters sold short and moments that make little sense to excuse away.

With those criticisms in mind, what the film does well it does exceedingly well.  This is a sci-fi thriller for thinking adults.. who demand more than shit blowing up.  I would applaud it for that alone, even if it didn't feature an outstanding cast at the top of their games, astounding visuals and an overall satisfying plot.  What the film does most effectively, as opposed to straight-line explaining how we arrived at the events of "Alien" and "Aliens" is enrich the universe of those films.  We now know who the Space Jockeys were, what they were all about, and ultimately where the xenomorphs come from.  The attempt to get to life's deeper mysteries and ask ultimately unanswerable questions puts it above your typical blockbuster, and indeed makes it one of the more ambitious studio films in recent years.  However, the inexplicable moments and the film's ultimate inability to strike a proper balance between 2001-esque philosophy class entrant and sci-fi thriller in the vein of "Alien" cause it to fall short of ultimate greatness.

In conclusion, a strong, often audacious film that is occasionally beautiful and very watchable, but suffers from some weaknesses that cause it to miss "classic" status.  8/10.